It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In a filing to Ellis on Wednesday, Mueller’s prosecutors laid out their case for no delay. Contrary to Manafort’s assertions, the prosecutors argued that his jail, while located two hours from Washington, had provided him with ample access to his lawyers and had not hindered his preparation for trial.
Far from being restrictive, prosecutors said Manafort had been given a personal telephone in his cell, which he used for more than 300 calls with attorneys and others over the past three weeks, and found a workaround to the jail’s ban on email.
Prosecutors also cited taped phone calls from prison in which Manafort remarked that he was being treated like a “VIP” and had access to “all my files like I would at home.”
Manafort was also afforded his own bathroom, shower and workspace, according to the court filing by Mueller’s office.
On Tuesday, Judge T.S. Ellis sought to address Manafort’s complaint about the remoteness of the jail by ordering him moved from the current facility in Warsaw, Virginia, to a jail in Alexandria closer to his attorneys and his home.
Manafort responded by asking that he be allowed to stay in Warsaw, citing concerns about safety and “the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement” two weeks before trial.
On Wednesday, Ellis denied Manafort’s request and ordered him moved to the Alexandria Detention Center, rejecting the notion that he would not be safe there. The Alexandria jail had experience with high-profile defendants “including foreign and domestic terrorists, spies and traitors,” Ellis wrote.
originally posted by: Kharron
Now, Manafort is no angel, he seems to be very shady, but how does a judge so quickly change their public stance, just weeks apart, to go from being sympathetic to Manafort's cause to pretty much sentencing him in the public eye with that statement?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron
The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.
Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.
It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor does not appear to be alleging that anyone else in the campaign, including then-candidate Donald Trump, was aware that Manafort may have been exploiting his high-ranking position in the campaign to facilitate a fraud.
“motions in limine,” which ask the court to preclude evidence on topics that are claimed to be irrelevant to the charges and that could cause unfair prejudice or confusion.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kharron
Ellis last ruling on Mueller still took the SC to task. Its not over yet.
MUeller filed a motion to bar the defense from disclosing that the feds already investigated Manafort for what he is being charged with now and declined to prosecute. The SC also stipulated they wont raise the russia collusion angle since if they did they would be required to turn over all evidence to Manafort.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron
The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.
Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.
It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.
Also on Wednesday, Mueller’s office filed a motion in the Washington case notifying the court of its intent to present evidence at trial about a Justice Department inspection into Manafort’s lobbying activities in the 1980’s.
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron
The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.
Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.
It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.
He was free burdman, but he broke the terms of his release and therefore got sent in. He did have a choice, he just abused it.
Hmmm, this could have been why the judges suddenly changed their opinions and stances. I'll look into the dates of when all that happened and see if there is a relation.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Kharron
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron
The thing about this that honestly pisses me off is that we're seeing states alter their criminal pretrial practices right and left, releasing all but the most violent criminals out to bail where they frequently commit additional serious crimes while waiting trial for their previous arrests. They call it "Catch and Release" here in AK and it's thanks to Senate Bill 91 here.
Meanwhile, here's a guy like Manafort who poses no danger to anyone, nor is he a particularly serious flight risk... locked up before and likely through his trial. No priors, no record indicating that he will sooner or later kill someone in commission of one of his future robberies or car thefts, no sexual assault trail behind him, no nearly monthly experience of doing something bad enough to find cuffs slapped on his wrists for years now.
It's bullsnip, pure bullsnip. I'd rather see 100 Manaforts walk free if it meant one additional piece of literal human crap, not worth the dime used to give them their attorney call, spent their pre-trial staring at bars rather than out and about terrorizing good people.
He was free burdman, but he broke the terms of his release and therefore got sent in. He did have a choice, he just abused it.
Hmmm, this could have been why the judges suddenly changed their opinions and stances. I'll look into the dates of when all that happened and see if there is a relation.
You do realize that Manafort didn't actually talk to the supposed witness? We're not sure which one he didn't talk to because Mueller will not release that information.
So as far as abusing the choice, Mueller said he did, Manafort didn't know what he was talking about and then was thrown in jail. A jail, btw, where he is allowed 1 hour in 23 to be out of his cell and phone calls are limited to 10 minutes.
So not exactly the same picture of incarceration you are attempting to portray.
So Mueller has not given anyone proof of witness tampering. He just said it happened and is not willing to prove it.
Just another day in the Democrat's dream America.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron
I'm not saying there weren't likely rational reasons. I'm just saying it's a bit frustrating to see the legal system punish something like this, where the primary "victims" are the establishment while whistling through the graveyard when the victims are Joe and Jane Taxpayer.
originally posted by: Kharron
What do you mean? You know legal stuff better than most of us here do.
originally posted by: Kharron
I was under the impression all evidence had to be turned over anyway; what do you think is being withheld and how is that legal? What's the purpose of it? If he is found not guilty, it's not like they can use it again later.
Thanks.